Fact, Fiction - Surviving Social Media

What is fact? What is fiction? With the rise of social media and independent news we find it increasingly difficult to tell the difference. After all, if a report is being presented by an official looking person on an official looking website, we can be forgiven for thinking it is true. 

But often these reports are false. Many invented stories are being presented as fact these days. And it seems that people no longer need to support their claims with evidence. We just need to say "the government is corrupt" or "climate change is fake" or "the virus is not harmful" and it becomes a sort of truth. Not actual truth, of course. But a pseudo truth which is treated as actual truth by people who really want to believe it. My favorite student, Plato, warned against this type of truth relativism.

So, what can we do? How can we guard ourselves from believing false information? A simple question may help. Does our favorite news source ever report the opposite of what we think? If not, we should be wary. Whenever we find ourselves following a news source that only ever presents information that we agree with, we should be highly suspicious. Why? Because a balanced source will present a range of viewpoints and information, some of which we agree with and some of which we do not. A source that tells us only what we already believe is not likely to be balanced.

This requires a level of critical self-reflection that we may find difficult. After all, it is reassuring to have our beliefs confirmed time and time again. But it is a rare person who has nothing but true beliefs. So we need our news sources to challenge us. To present ideas that we might disagree with. To sometimes tell us we’re wrong. Seek balance, and you may find yourself better able to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

- Socrates

It's my opinion

During a recent dialogue my interlocutor shut down discussion with the following statement: "this is my opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion". In other words, he was saying that he was as right as possible without needing to actually prove it. Or, put another way, there we was no need to refute his point because he couldn't be wrong about it - because, it was his opinion.

I understand how opinions can't be challenged when they relate to matters of taste such as "in my opinion chocolate is nicer than strawberry". But when statements relate to matters of fact, such as "vaccinations are effective" or "CO2 warms the atmosphere", I believe there is a truth value that can be uncovered through investigation and dialogue. Simply brushing the issue aside by claiming to have an unchallengeable opinion seems to me to leave the issue completely unsettled.

- S

Thinking makes it so

Reading through some texts, I found an interesting passage. It appears in a play by an author named William Shakespeare. The quote reads: "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so". This sounded familiar to me, and with good reason. A philosopher closer to my time named Seneca said the same thing. But what does it mean? It sounds suspiciously relativist and reminds me of a similar claim made by Protagoras, who lived during my time in Athens. He said "Man is the measure of all things", meaning that truth or falsity is dependent upon one's subjective point of view. Now, Seneca was not talking about objective truth. He was talking about moral action and values. And I agree with his statement, in a sense, but I do not agree with relativism. So I worry that there is tension in my beliefs. Consider this syllogism:

P1. (premise) If there is no objective good or bad, then good or bad is based on subjective thought

P2. (premise) There is no objective good or bad (Seneca)

C. (conclusion) Therefore, good or bad is based on subjective thought

But I think the conclusion is false. I have argued many times that moral good or bad is not subjective, which means it is objective:

P1. (premise) If there is no objective good or bad, then good or bad is based on subjective thought

P2. (premise) It is not true that good or bad is based on subjective thought

C. (conclusion) Therefore, there is objective good or bad.

So, I wonder what Seneca meant. How can I reconcile my belief that there is objective good and bad with his claim that "thinking makes it so"? Perhaps he was merely talking about the feelings we have towards certain events. An event may be objectively good or bad, but my feeling about the event is subjective. It is up to me to respond to the event. So I believe he meant that whether we feel angry or upset about an event is the result of our thinking about things.

-- Socrates.

** Update:
To answer a question that was posed "How do I know that the world is divided into objective and subjective things", I answer that I do not know. I know very little. But here I am analyzing the relativist's claim that there is no objective good and that good and bad are subjective. I am testing my beliefs against this claim. My beliefs are not yet knowledge.
- S

---

What is knowledge? (a Socratic Dialogue)

Composed by Brent Silby

---

Over the years I have had many conversations with many people. You would be surprised how often certain issues resurface. My relatively recent dialogue with Thomas and Paul bore a remarkable resemblance to a dialogue I had back in Athens. My memory may be fading, but I remember the dialogue. It was with a worthy fellow by the name Theaetetus. The following is a transcript of my dialogue with Thomas and Paul in which we question the nature of knowledge, just as Theaetetus and I did all those years ago.

-- Socrates

Facebook and Plato

After all these years, people are still working through issues by referring to the writings of my most famous student, Plato. This pleases me. Much of what he wrote featured myself as lead character. While flattering, I need to come clean. I didn't actually say a lot of what Plato put in my mouth. His dialogues are not actual recordings of my discussions--though some of the early ones come close.

In this article (Would Plato Allow Facebook In His Republic), Jenni Jenkins asks what Plato would think of Facebook. Among other things, she refers to Plato's realm of forms. I never held the metaphysical view that there is an existing realm of forms. That is Plato's idea. But I do agree with some of his thoughts as outlined in this article. I particularly agree with his thoughts about truth relativism. These ideas, it seems to me, have been reinvigorated many times through the centuries. Relativism is seductive and it persistently reappears. And each time, philosophers examine again the nature of truth and reveal the internal paradox of relativism by asking the question: is it an objective truth that there is no objective truth?

Another point that I agree with is that when people are invisible, they will be more inclined to act badly. In the case of Facebook, people can act "invisibly", commenting on articles under false names, or even their own name but so far removed, they are essentially invisible.

The argument is simple:

P1. If I am invisible, then I am more inclined to act badly
P2. On Facebook I am invisible
C. Therefore, on Facebook I am more inclined to act badly

The argument is valid and it seems to be the case that P1 is true. But maybe this is due to ignorance. People who know me will recall that I always argued that people only commit bad acts out of ignorance. No-one thinks they are doing wrong when they act badly. They commit bad actions because they don't realize what they're doing is wrong. Was I wrong about this? Do people actually realize that they are doing harm to others when they post nasty comments? Or do people truly not realize that they are doing harm? Or is it possible that people realize they are doing harm, but think it is the right action to take?

This is an issue that clearly requires further examination.
-- Socrates

Alas, relativism is alive and well

My old friend Protagoras said that "the human being is the measure of all things, of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not". He was a relativist and thought that every individual's points of view are true. Well, I examined his view and found it to be self contradictory.

Alas, it looks like relativism persists to this day.

This article expresses a concern about the rise of relativism:
O'Neill Skllful Faking

-- Socrates

Opinion or Truth (a Socratic Dialogue)

Opinion or Truth
A Socratic Dialogue
By BRENT SILBY

Background
Through this dialogue we see the problem that arises when we take a relativist stance to truth. Many people have taken a liking to relativism; perhaps because it seems so wonderfully democratic. However, the further one goes down the relativist road, the more difficult it becomes to answer fairly straightforward questions. It is almost as if the relativist tries to use logic to argue that logic doesn’t work.

Moral Relativism (a Socratic Dialogue)

Moral Relativism
A Socratic Dialogue
By BRENT SILBY

Background

As he walks through the theater district in Western Heights town, Socrates comes across John leaving a movie theater. Through a series of questions, Socrates reveals the problem with moral relativism. This dialogue serves as an introduction to moral relativism.